As of this writing, the
number of people infected is low—but measles is exceptionally contagious. While those who have been vaccinated have an excellent
defense against the disease, the unvaccinated are quite vulnerable. These people
include those too young to get the vaccine and those who have medical reasons
for not getting it. It also includes people who have elected to not have themselves
or their children vaccinated. Washington allows citizens to opt out of vaccination,
which is the reason that the population did not reach the percentage of people
needed to provide herd immunity (that is, so many people are vaccinated, even
the unvaccinated are protected because the disease will be limited in its
ability to spread).

While medical reasons are clearly legitimate reasons
to not get vaccinated, some states allow people to refuse vaccination based on
their religious beliefs. Some states also allow an exception for “philosophical
beliefs” about vaccines. While the legality is a matter for the lawmakers, this
is clearly also an ethical matter.

Proponents of vaccine choice might argue that
vaccines are harmful and hence it is the right choice to opt out, regardless of
whether one is motivated by religion or philosophy. However, the measles
vaccine (like almost all vaccines) is very safe. This is not to say that vaccination
is without risk—they can have serious side effects. However, the risk of the harms
prevented by vaccines greatly outweighs the risk of the vaccines. Also, most worries
about vaccines are based on utterly debunked claims. To use an analogy, the
argument against getting vaccinated is like the old argument about not wearing
a seatbelt. One version of the seatbelt argument is that since a person could
be trapped in a burning wreck, they should not wear their seatbelt because they
will be safer. While there is some tiny
risk in wearing a seatbelt, the risk of injury and death resulting from not
wearing one is far greater—hence wearing a seatbelt is the good choice.
Likewise, for vaccines. As such, except for people who are allergic to a vaccine
or would otherwise really suffer medical harm, the argument that people should opt
out because of the danger has no merit.

Religious and “philosophical” reasons to opt out
of vaccines need not be based on harm or even on any appeal to facts. Even it
the religious or “philosophical” claim could be shown to be false or even impossible,
the justification would remain—after all these justifications are about what
the person thinks, not about what is true. The basic idea is that the
justification to opt out would be the person’s claim that their religion or
belief forbids them from getting vaccinated or having their children
vaccinated. As such, the justification would fall under freedom of religion/belief.

While my commitment to the freedom of belief
entails that I think it is generally wrong to compel people to violate their
beliefs, I accept the obvious fact that freedoms are not limitless. To use an
absurd example, if someone believed sincerely in Cthulhu and wanted to sacrifice
people to their imaginary god, this should not be allowed—freedom of religion
does not grant a right to murder. This does point to a non-absurd point, namely
that the freedom of belief does not grant a freedom to harm others.

To use an analogy, freedom of belief can be seen
as like the freedom to drink alcohol. A person is free to drink as much as they
wish, even if doing so is harmful to themselves or a bad live choice. However,
this does not grant then the freedom to get behind the wheel while drunk. Likewise,
for freedom of belief: a person can believe whatever crazy, false or wicked
thing they wish as long as that belief is not used to try to justify harming
others. While this principle applies obviously to human sacrifice, it also
applies to vaccines.

While a person might argue that they are only
putting themselves at risk when they elect to not have their child vaccinated,
this is obviously not true. They are putting their child and others at risk. To
use an analogy, they would be like parents who claim that the right to drink not
only allows them the right to get drunk, but to go out for a drive with their
kids. This would obviously put their kids and other people at risk—without their
consent. As such, refusing to vaccinate one’s children when the vaccines have
been proven safe and the risk of disease is real is morally unacceptable, no
mater the beliefs of the parents. Beliefs about beer and drunk driving would
not warrant exceptions to forbidding drunk driving, likewise beliefs about
vaccines and disease would not warrant exceptions to vaccination.

It might be objected that adults should have the
choice in their own case. In the case of vaccinations against diseases that do
not spread (like shingles), there is no moral reason to forbid people from
opting out—they are only putting themselves at risk. But, going back to the
drunk driving analogy, it would obviously be wrong for a drunk adult to go
driving even if they had no kids or left them at home. Naturally, if a person or
group is willing to isolate themselves and have no contact with anyone else, then
they would be free to vaccinate or not—this would be analogous to people
agreeing to drive drunk together on private roads. It would be a stupid idea,
but as long as everyone provides informed consent, then it would be morally
acceptable. Of course, this would still not justify opting out on vaccinations
for children—they cannot provide informed consent and accept the risk.

Based on the above arguments, allowing people to
opt out of vaccines based on beliefs is immoral and should not be permitted.

Like this:

Reader Interactions

Comments

Michael, you have addressed just about every objection to Illegal immigration regarding economics, jobs, crime, and just about everything else. Many of these objections you have dismissed as being merely couched racism.

However, although I don’t know the statistics, I would imagine that very few, if any of those crossing the southwestern borders have been vaccinated against measles mumps rubella or any other disease that we in this country have all but eradicated.

How do you reconcile your stand on vaccination with your stand on border crossing enforcement? Do you think that the massive influx of millions of undocumented people who have not been vaccinated is something that needs to be addressed?

Do you think that the American taxpayers should pay to have free clinics set up at the borders so that truck driving coyotes can pull in and have their cargo vaccinated before Crossing into Texas or Arizona?

Or do you think that perhaps this is yet one more reason to tighten security against illegal border crossings has a real threat to American life and livelihood?

Or do you think that my assumption that these people are not vaccinated is just another example of racism in this country?

DH, the World Health Organization states that El Salvador has a slightly higher rate of measles vaccination (94%) than the U.S. (91%). Other Central American vaccination rates for measles are also high: Guatemala 85%; Mexico 89%; Honduras 89%. This is reported by the L.A. Times here: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-measles-border-20150217-story.html
Searching for vaccination rates of individual Central American countries turns up additional sources; all the sources I looked at reported high vaccination rates in Central America (not that I spent much time on this; I don’t have much interest in this particular argument). FWIW, as a philosophy undergrad I learned that it does not serve one well to base philosophical arguments on facts that one has not carefully checked; people who are trained in philosophy are highly likely to check facts (this is especially true of those doing experimental philosophy, but in my experience it applies broadly to all philosophers).

I would have no objection to people declining vaccination as long as they quarantined themselves. Otherwise, it’s those who can’t get the vaccine and/or are vulnerable to it who are forced to live in quarantine.